1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The allegations by the parties and the judgment thereof

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) from October 30, 2018 to January 29, 2019, the Plaintiff supplied the construction materials equivalent to KRW 22,419,469 to the “C” which was registered as a business operator under the name of the Defendant. Since the Defendant permitted C to register as a business operator and use the said materials, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the price of the said goods as the nominal owner pursuant to Article 24 of the Commercial Act. 2) The Defendant’s assertion that C is the actual operator of D, and the Plaintiff did not have entered into a goods supply contract with the Defendant.

In addition, since the plaintiff was aware that he was a business owner who operates C or was unaware of it due to gross negligence, the defendant is not liable for the name truster.

B. 1) First of all, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant is a party directly concluding a goods supply contract with the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. There is no objective material to deem that the Plaintiff directly delivered or received contact with the Defendant for negotiating or implementing the contract with the Defendant himself. 2) Next, we examine whether the Plaintiff is liable to the Defendant of the nominal lender under the Commercial Act asserted by the Plaintiff.

The liability of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is to protect a third party who trades by misunderstanding the nominal titleholder as the business owner. Therefore, if the other party to the transaction knew of or was grossly negligent in making the fact of the nominal name, he/she shall not be held liable. In such a case, the nominal lender who claims exemption from liability bears the burden of proof as to whether the other party to the transaction knew or was

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da10512, Apr. 13, 2001). In full view of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff is aware of the overall purport of the pleadings in the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 14, 18, and Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 5.